A SUCCESS FOR DEMOCRACY: PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING

The campaign finance system in the U.S. is corrupt. It allows wealthy individuals and corporations to effectively buy and bribe candidates. One of the signs of resurgent democracy is the passing of campaign finance reforms in many states and municipalities. One very effective way to democratize campaign financing is a public matching funds system that amplifies the campaign contributions, and therefore the voices and power, of everyday Americans. New York City’s public financing system is credited with allowing Zohran Mamdani to run a competitive race for Mayor.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

The campaign finance system in the U.S. is corrupt. It allows wealthy individuals and corporations to effectively buy and bribe candidates. This fosters oligarchy. However, as noted in this previous post, one sign of resurgent democracy is the passing of campaign finance reforms in many states and municipalities.

Making campaign financing more democratic is quite difficult, given that the Supreme Court has equated political spending with speech, including for corporations, and ruled that free speech rights, therefore, allow unlimited campaign spending by wealthy individuals and corporations.

However, there is one very effective way to democratize campaign financing and level the playing field between candidates with access to big sums of money and everyday people running for elected office: a public financing system. More than 14 states and 25 municipalities have enacted campaign finance reforms with some form of public financial support. The most effective of these systems gives a candidate the option of participating in a public matching funds system. If they do, it requires them to agree to restrictions on the size of donations and the use of their own funds. Without voluntary opting in, these restrictions would be prohibited by the Supreme Court’s rulings. [1] Public matching funds amplify the small campaign contributions, and therefore the voices and power, of everyday Americans. [2]

New York City’s public financing system, which has been in place since 1988, is credited with allowing Zohran Mamdani to run a competitive race for Mayor. He won the Democratic primary and is favored to win Tuesday’s final election. (He’s facing disgraced former New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, whom he beat in the primary. Cuomo, a lifelong Democratic, is running in the final election as an independent with backing from the oligarchy, including President Trump.)

Whether Mamdani wins the final election or not, this is a huge win for democracy. (See this previous post for more detail on public financing systems and their benefits for democracy.) It shows that a public financing system like New York City’s allows a serious candidate, but one who lacks access to big money, to run a competitive campaign against candidates with the backing of the big money oligarchs. It allows candidates to run and win without big money from private donors who want policy favors.

In New York City’s public financing system, small donations of up to $250 from constituents (i.e., residents of the City) are matched by public funds 8 to 1. Therefore, a $50 contribution is worth $450 to the candidate and a $250 contribution is worth $2,250. Mamdani raised over $4 million from over 40,000 contributors, making his average contribution amount under $100. He received over $13 million in public matching funds for his qualifying, private contributions.

Without these public matching funds, Mamdani probably would not have had the resources necessary to effectively reach out to enough New Yorkers to be competitive against the oligarch-funded Cuomo. As Mamdani said, “it allows … the amplification of the voice of ordinary New Yorkers, as opposed to the billionaires who have grown used to buying our elections.” [3]

The public financing of campaigns is not a new idea. It was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt in 1907 as part of his effort to rein in the Robber Barons and their monopolistic trusts of the Gilded Age, as well as to rein in the political corruption they fostered. In 1974, after the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Nixon, a public financing system was created for presidential campaigns. The Senate passed legislation creating a public financing system for congressional elections, but it was not passed by the Democratic-controlled House. In the 1990s, after the savings and loan crisis and scandals, Congress passed public financing for congressional elections, but Republican President George H. W. Bush vetoed it. Democratic President Clinton promoted public financing legislation, but Republicans blocked it with a filibuster. Some presidential candidates opted out of the presidential public financing system because they found its spending limits constraining and too low. As the cost and spending of presidential campaigns escalated, the public financing system failed to keep up. In 2008, candidate Barack Obama opted out of the system, which was essentially its death knell.

Public campaign financing systems at the state and local levels will hopefully gain enough support so that eventually such a system will again be proposed for our national elections. Without public financing, many candidates face a wrenching choice: run a race standing up for everyday people and challenging the oligarchs but that fails to be competitive due to a lack of resources, or sell out to the big donors who are looking for policies to be shaped to their benefit. In the current big donor dominated campaign finance system, multiple studies and many, many anecdotes show that broadly popular policies don’t get enacted because policies are consistently formulated to benefit the wealthy and their companies.

[1] Brennan Center for Justice, retrieved from the Internet on 10/17/25, “Reform money in politics,” (https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/reform-money-politics)

[2] Sirota, D., 10/22/25, “The real lesson from Zohran Mamdani’s ascent,” The Nation (https://thenationmagazine.substack.com/p/the-real-lesson-from-zohran-mamdanis)

[3] Sirota, D., 10/22/25, see above

SIGNS OF A RESURGENCE OF DEMOCRACY AND PROGRESSIVE POLICIES

An American oligarchy has battled for control of our country since its founding. Today, there are signs of a resurgence of democracy and a third progressive policy era. These signs include a resurgence of unions, campaign finance reforms at the state and local levels, and the growing public and private protests and pushback against the Trump administration. We, the American people, must stand up for democracy. We can defeat the oligarchy.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

(Note: Please follow me and get notices of my blog posts on Bluesky at: @jalippitt.bsky.social. Thanks!)

An American oligarchy based on wealth and privilege, with race and religion lurking behind them, has battled for control of our country since its founding. Two progressive eras have pushed back against oligarchy, heralded a resurgence of democracy, and made progress toward the founding principles of America. These efforts relegated and regulated the oligarchy to the back seat, putting we the people back in control of America. (See this previous post for more details.)

Today, there are signs of a resurgence of democracy and a third progressive policy era. After 45 years of dramatically increasing income and wealth inequality, shrinkage of the middle class, and workers’ wages not keeping up with inflation or increases in productivity, many Americans are ready to throw the oligarchy out. They recognize that:

Unrestrained capitalism is not good for consumers, workers, communities, or our planet.
Huge corporations tend to engage in monopolistic behaviors.
Oligarchs are anti-democratic and are focused on feathering their own nests.

One sign of surging democracy and progressive politics is the resurgence of unions. Collective bargaining by unionized workers levels the balance of power between oligarch business owners and workers. Unions improve workers’ compensation and working conditions. Evidence of the union resurgence includes:

The number of union elections has more than doubled since 2021.
Workers have won 70% of those elections, the highest win rate in 15 years.
Petitions for union elections increased by 27% in 2024.
Public support for unions is at 70%, the highest level since the 1960s.
60 million non-union workers (40% of the workforce) report they would vote to join a union if they got the chance.

Another sign of surging democracy and progressive politics is the passing of campaign finance reforms in multiple states and municipalities. Although reforms to enhance disclosure of campaign donations are very important, and election reforms to make it easier to register and vote are important, the most impactful reforms are ones that provide public financial support to candidates. There are multiple ways to do this, including giving vouchers or tax credits to voters to use to support the candidates of their choice. More than 14 states and 25 municipalities have enacted campaign finance reforms with some form of public financial support.

Perhaps the most effective way to level the playing field between candidates with access to big sums of money and everyday people running for elected office is a public financing system like the ones in New York City and more recently in New York State. These systems require the candidate to opt into the public financing system, which means the candidate agrees to restrictions on the size of donations and the use of one’s own funds that would otherwise be prohibited by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. (As you probably know, the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision equated the spending of money on election campaigns with speech. Therefore, freedom of speech means there can be no limits on campaign spending or donations.) [1]

In these public financing systems, small donations (generally less than $200) from constituents (i.e., residents of the candidate’s district) are matched by public funds (up to 8 to 1) for candidates who agree to limits on the size of donations and other restrictions. A candidate must qualify for public financing by garnering a certain number or dollar amount of small donations from constituents. Studies of campaign public financing systems find that they have many benefits including increased diversity of candidates (by class, race, and gender), increased civic engagement and voting, and increased focus of candidates on issues (as opposed to fundraising).

Another sign of the resurgence of support for democracy is the growing resistance to the Trump administration. Institutions from the mainstream media to colleges and universities to law firms are starting to stand up and push back. Elected officials at the state and local levels are pushing back more and more. Democrats in Congress are becoming more organized and effective in pushing back. The courts for the most part, except for the Supreme Court and certain other very right-wing judges, have been pushing back.

Various elections all around the country have also quite consistently shown that voters are standing up and voting against those who are undermining our democracy and supporting the oligarchy. We need to keep up this momentum in statewide elections in Virginia and New Jersey and state and local elections elsewhere this fall. And we need to continue to work to build a strong wave in support of democracy in the 2026 elections for Congress and other offices.

Most importantly, a growing segment of the public is standing up and pushing back. The millions of Americans who engaged in the Oct. 18 No Kings protests sent a strong, unequivocal message in support of democracy. The many, many other smaller protests that are occurring daily reinforce that message. The pushback on media executives, who were compromising freedom of speech by taking Jimmy Kimmel off the air, sent out shock waves that made those media executives change their minds. We’ll need to continue to do these things again and again to put democracy back in the driver’s seat.

Thank you for all you’re doing! Please keep up the great and important work to save our democracy! We, the American people, as citizens, consumers, and workers, must stand up for democracy. We can defeat the oligarchy, and its authoritarianism and fascism.

For lots of good news on the fight for democracy see Jess Craven’s 10/12 Chop Wood Carry Water post.

[1] Brennan Center for Justice, retrieved from the Internet on 10/17/25, “Reform money in politics,” (https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/reform-money-politics)

OUR CORRUPT CAMPAIGN FINANCING SYSTEM part 3

U.S. political campaigns are awash in money. American oligarchs are buying our elected officials, thereby corrupting all facets of government. We must reform campaign financing to preserve our democracy. Matching small campaign contributions with public funds in a system that restricts the size and source of campaign contributions is the most effective answer to big money in our elections, particularly within the context of current Supreme Court rulings.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

My previous three posts have focused on how a miniscule group of billionaires (aka the American oligarchs) are buying our elected officials (here), using super PACs to do so (here) and expecting a return on their “investments,” all of which corrupt our government (here). They also highlighted how big donors are using non-profit organizations that don’t have to report donors to hide their identities and how super PACs are violating the law by coordinating with candidates’ campaigns. Unfortunately, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is failing to enforce campaign finance laws. Meanwhile, Congress has failed to act, although bills to reform campaign financing have been on the table. [1]

In the 2024 election campaigns, donors who spent at least $5 million spent more than twice as much as they had in the 2020 presidential election cycle. About 44% ($480 million) of all the money spent on Trump’s campaign came from just ten individual donors. The wealthy individuals spending tens and hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns are motivated by greed (they expect a return on investment for their spending), as well as a desire for power and influence. Elon Musk (Tesla, X, Space X, Starlink, etc.) is the most visible of these oligarchs. He appears to be motivated primarily by a desire for power and influence. Jeff Bezos (Amazon and the Washington Post) and Mark Zuckerberg (Meta, Facebook, and Instagram) appear to be motivated primarily by greed and fear that Trump would retaliate and hurt their businesses if they didn’t support him. Peter Thiel (vulture capitalist and sponsor of J. D. Vance) appears to be motivated primarily by a desire for power and influence. Trump and J. D. Vance appear to be motivated primarily by a desire for power, although wealth may be a close second.

This huge spending on campaigns corrupts who runs for elected offices, who wins, what issues governments address, what policy alternatives are considered and adopted, and how laws are implemented and enforced (or not). The oligarchs’ spending buys access to elected and regulatory officials. It allows them to influence policies such as regulations and tax laws, as well as enforcement of them. [2]

More and more of the money spent on congressional races is coming from out-of-state donors, highlighting that big spenders are looking for a return on their investments, not just supporting their local congressional candidates. It also means that our elected officials are more likely to be responsive to wealthy special interests than to the constituents who actually live in their congressional districts.

The huge amount of money in supposedly democratic, one person one vote, elections is obscene. The buying of our elected officials by wealthy interests is corrupting all facets of our governments. To preserve democracy, we must reform campaign financing laws and push back against the power and influence of the oligarchs.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis faced these issues roughly a century ago. As a lawyer, often doing pro bono work in the public interest, he successfully challenged the powerful railroad, street car, electricity, and banking companies, as well as their wealthy owners.

The current situation makes clear how right Brandeis, a fervent supporter of democracy, was when he wrote almost 100 years ago, “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” How true those words ring today. [3]

An ancillary effect of the incredible cost of election campaigns is that elected officials must spend substantial time fundraising from the day they get elected. This diverts time, energy, and attention from policy making and legislating, as well as from interacting with constituents.

Before Republicans took control of the House in 2022, The Freedom to Vote Act (S.2747) was developed and introduced in the Senate to address the issues of big money and dark money in our elections. It included most of the key provisions of the For the People Act and the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act, which had previously been passed by Democrats in the House. Unfortunately, Republicans in the Senate blocked these bills and there is no hope for such reforms at the national level with Republicans fully in control now. (For more details see this previous post.)

The Freedom to Vote Act included provisions that would have: [4]

Reformed the campaign finance system by
- a) requiring enhanced disclosure of all major donors by any entity spending more than $10,000,
- b) ensuring super PACs are truly independent of candidates, and
- c) strengthening enforcement of campaign finance laws.
Created a system for matching small donations with public funds in U.S. House campaigns that states and candidates could opt into. It would have matched each dollar of small donations with $6 of public funds in exchange for limiting the size of donations. This would eliminate the need for candidates to rely on large donations from wealthy special interests with their corrupting influence.

Given the control of the federal government by Republicans, oligarchs, and the six corrupt Supreme Court justices, people working to limit the influence of wealthy interests in our elections will need to focus at the state and local levels for now. State and local governments can enact laws implementing all of the provisions for the Freedom to Vote Act above: enhanced disclosure and transparency for campaign spending, requirements that super PAC and other outside spending is truly independent of candidates’ campaigns, public matching funds for small contributions to campaigns, and strict enforcement of campaign financing laws. [5]

Matching small campaign contributions with public funds in a system that restricts the size and source of campaign contributions is the most effective answer to big money in our elections, particularly within the context of current Supreme Court rulings. Such systems have been in place in multiple states for some time and in New York State starting in 2024. A number of municipalities also have such systems, including a very successful one in New York City since 1988. (See this previous post for more details.)

Given that the state and national parties set the rules for their primaries, they could address campaign finance reform. They could, for example, ban super PAC money and dark money in party primaries, as well as require strict disclosure of donors. So far, the Democratic National Committee has refused to consider such campaign finance rules, despite a push from some internal groups to do so. Apparently, it is still too wedded to big donors to be willing to work for government of, by, and for the people, as opposed to wealthy special interests.

I encourage you to contact your local and state elected officials, as well as state and national party officials, to ask them to enact campaign finance reforms. The corrupting influence of big money in our elections must be reversed if the U.S. is to be a democracy where all voters have a fair, if not equal, voice in our government. Money should not drown out the voices of citizens, and even candidates, in our elections. And voters have a right to know who is spending money to try to influence their vote. Justice Brandeis summed it all up by saying, “The end for which we must strive is the attainment of rule by the people” as opposed to rule by the oligarchs who are buying our elected officials and government.

[1] Pino, M. & Fishman, J., 1/14/25, “Fifteen years later, Citizens United defined the 2024 election,” Brennan Center for Justice (Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election | Brennan Center for Justice)

[2] Goldstein, L., 12/10/24, “The money game,” The American Prospect (The Money Game – The American Prospect)

[3] Dilliard, I., editor, 1941, “Mr. Justice Brandeis: Great American,” with quotes from Lonergan, R., 10/14/41, “A steadfast friend of labor,” Labor (pages 42 – 43) (https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009170443&seq=9)

[4] Brennan Center for Justice, retrieved 1/19/25, “The Freedom to Vote Act,” (https://www.brennancenter.org/freedom-vote-act)

[5] Pino, M. & Fishman, J., 1/14/25, see above.

OUR CORRUPT CAMPAIGN FINANCING SYSTEM part 2

U.S. political campaigns are awash in money and it’s corrupting our government. The big spenders, wealthy individuals and corporations, are looking for something in return. They generally get rewarded with policies and actions that provide a high return on their investments.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

My previous two posts have focused on how billionaires are buying our elected officials (here) and how super PACs (political action committees) are the vehicle they are using to do so (here). They also highlighted how big donors are using non-profit organizations that don’t have to report donors in order to hide their identities (i.e., “dark money”) and how super PACs are violating the law by coordinating with candidates’ campaigns. Unfortunately, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is failing to enforce campaign finance laws.

An example of how big money donors and our political parties are flouting campaign finance laws is the growing and now extensive use of joint fundraising committees. These joint fundraising committees allow big donors to skirt campaign contribution limits and write one huge check, typically for tens of thousands of dollars, for candidates’ campaign committees and political party PACs. The entities in the joint committee then supposedly split up the money so that no contribution limits are violated. Some of the joint fundraising committees directly pay for advertising but frame it as a fundraising solicitation to evade restrictions on their activities. These joint committees have also figured out how to game the system to get the lower advertising rates supposedly given only to candidates’ committees. (Note: Advertising rates for super PACs and other non-candidate entities can be up to 20 times higher than those for candidates’ committees.) [1]

These big donors are special interests, and they view their campaign spending as an investment. They expect a return on their investment, and generally they get paid back many, many times over. You may remember that in 2017 wealthy Republican donors were telling Trump and the Republicans that if they didn’t get a big tax cut their support of Republicans in the 2018 congressional elections would be curtailed. So, the Republicans in Congress and Trump, in December 2017, enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which gave huge tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations.

As campaign spending is increasingly dominated by outside money, which is increasingly from super PACs and done with dark money, the result is a political environment of hidden influence by wealthy individuals and corporations. This undermines an essential principle of democracy: that voters deserve to know who is trying to influence their vote.

An example of huge spending by a special interest, using, of course, a super PAC, is the cryptocurrency industry. It was one of the largest and most successful special interest spenders in the 2024 elections. It spent roughly $245 million via a super PAC called Fairshake. The majority of its money went to Republicans. It won every one of the 49 races it spent money on except for Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) winning re-election campaign. However, none of Fairshake’s advertisements even mentioned cryptocurrency; it clearly wanted to influence elections without revealing its true interests.

Fairshake’s 48 victorious campaigns may understate its influence, as its spending in primaries instilled fear in numerous Democratic candidates who avoided criticizing the crypto-industry or stated support for it. Cryptocurrency industry donors were responsible for almost half of all corporate donations to all super PACs. Fairshake already has $78 million on hand for the 2026 congressional elections. Based on all of this, the crypto industry will almost certainly be rewarded with weak regulation by Congress and the Trump administration.

Another example of special interest spending with a very specific outcome in mind is the American Israel Affairs Committee’s super PAC (AIPAC). It spent roughly $100 million in the 2024 elections, primarily in primaries to beat Democratic candidates who weren’t unquestioning supporters of Israel in the face of the horrific Gaza War. It spent $14 million in one Democratic primary to beat incumbent Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), a record for outside spending in a House race. It also spent heavily in incumbent Cori Bush’s (D-MO) primary, which she ended up losing. The primary funders of AIPAC are Republican mega-donors, many of whom each gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to it. [2]

As another example, two multi-national, multi-hundred-billion-dollar investment management firms, Blackstone Group and Citadel, each gave $22 million to the Republican Senate Leadership super PAC for the 2022 congressional elections. They want, and so far have gotten, lax regulation of their financial activities and favorable tax treatment for their incomes. For example, the “carried interest” provision of U.S. tax laws allows the firms’ managers to treat their income as capital gains, which lets them pay an income tax rate on their huge incomes at less than half the rate they’d pay on regular income (i.e., non-capital gains income).

The fossil fuel industry is also reaping rewards for its spending of about $75 million in support of Trump’s campaign. Although Trump, in a public statement, told fossil fuel industry executives that if they invested $1 billion in his campaign that he would reward them, $75 million appear to have done the trick. Trump, in his first days in office, has signed executive orders, some of them likely written by fossil fuel industry lobbyists, revoking climate change reduction rules. These executive orders allow increased oil and gas drilling off the U.S. coast and on federal lands, allow the building of new liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminals, and withdraw the U.S. from international climate change reduction efforts. [3]

My next post will discuss some more general effects of all this special interest spending on election campaigns and what can be done about this obscene and corrupting spending.

[1] Goldstein, L., 12/10/24, “The money game,” The American Prospect (The Money Game – The American Prospect)

[2] Johnson, J., 8/28/24, “‘Very bad sign for democracy’: AIPAC has spent over $100 million on 2024 elections,” Common Dreams (‘Very Bad Sign for Democracy’: AIPAC Has Spent Over $100 Million on 2024 Elections | Common Dreams)

[3] Johnson, J., 1/17/25, “Trump readies ‘day one climate destruction package’ after raking in big oil cash,” Common Dreams (Trump Readies ‘Day One Climate Destruction Package’ After Raking in Big Oil Cash | Common Dreams)

OUR CORRUPT CAMPAIGN FINANCING SYSTEM

U.S. political campaigns are awash in money with increasing portions of it coming from super PACs and “dark money” non-profits. The unlimited political spending by super PACs, allowed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, is not independent of candidates’ campaigns nor are its donors fully disclosed. These were the Supreme Court’s stated requirements to ensure that candidates weren’t corrupted by the unlimited spending. Knowledgeable observers knew these requirements and the avoidance of corruption were a joke from day one.

(Note: If you find a post too long to read, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog!)

Sixteen billion dollars were spent on the 2024 U.S. federal election campaigns. (See this previous post for more details.) Three types of spending occur in our federal elections:

Candidates’ political committees
Political action committees (PACs)
Super PACs

Candidates’ committees can accept up to $3,300 from an individual per election. (A primary and general election count as two elections.) A candidate’s committee can receive up to $5,000 per election from a PAC or party committee. A candidate’s committee may not accept any money from a super PAC. (Note: All money spent on a campaign that is not spent by a candidate’s committee is referred to as “outside money.”) [1]

PACs can accept contributions from individuals (not organizations) of up to $5,000 per year. PACs can contribute up to $5,000 per election to a candidate’s committee and up to $15,000 per election to a political party committee.

Super PACs (which came into existence after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision) can accept contributions of unlimited size from any entity, i.e., an individual or an organization, including a corporation or other business entity. They are not allowed to contribute to candidates’ committees or to political party committees. Their expenditures are supposed to be independent of candidates and parties. This requirement for independence was central to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The five justices supporting the unlimited contributions and spending wrote in their decision that disclosed, independent spending could not corrupt candidates or our government. Therefore, allowing unlimited, independent spending in campaigns, including by corporations, was constitutionally protected free speech.

To maintain independence, super PACs are prohibited (supposedly) from coordinating with candidates’ campaigns. However, this independence began eroding the day after the Court’s decision. That erosion grew dramatically in 2024. Knowledgeable observers knew from day one that this assertion of independence and lack of corruptive influence was a smoke screen for the justices who wanted to allow wealthy individuals and corporations to dominate our elections and government. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has not enforced the law on independence. It has never fined or otherwise penalized a super PAC, even when coordination was blatant, as knowledgeable observers knew it wouldn’t.

For example, campaigns put “red boxes” in the media sections of their websites with messaging and targeting information. The super PACs use this information to ensure their messaging and targeting is aligned with the candidate’s campaign strategy. [2]

One of the most blatant violations of super PAC independence in 2024, was that super PACs actually ran extensive door knocking and other voter outreach efforts. Elon Musk’s super PAC’s activities in Pennsylvania were the most notable example. This kind of voter outreach requires sophisticated voter lists and street maps that candidates’ campaigns typically have and that PACs typically don’t have. Moreover, a failure to coordinate such activities with campaigns would create substantial redundancy and inefficiency. Nonetheless, an FEC ruling in 2024 essentially legalized such activities.

Furthermore, wealthy donors have found a way to avoid disclosure of their identities by funneling their money through non-profit 501(c)(4) organizations. (See this previous post for more details on 501(c)(4)s.) This “dark money,” as it is referred to, was about half of the $4.5 billion in outside spending in the 2024 federal elections.

My next post will present more examples of the corruption of the campaign finance system, discuss the effects of all this special interest spending, and give some options for what can be done about this obscene spending on our elections.

[1] Ghosh, S., 9/15/22, “PACs, super PACs and more: Your guide to key election spending vehicles,” Campaign Legal Center (PACs, Super PACs and More: Your Guide to Key Election Spending Vehicles | Campaign Legal Center)

[2] Goldstein, L., 12/10/24, “The money game,” The American Prospect (The Money Game – The American Prospect)